‘A perfect storm': multi-club ownership, Crystal Palace and a looming court threat

In the waterfront offices of Uefa's House of European Football headquarters in Nyon, the legal team are preparing for an unwanted trip around Lake Geneva to Lausanne. Over the course of many internal meetings since Crystal Palace inadvertently provided Uefa with the toughest test yet of its multi-club ownership (MCO) rules by winning the FA Cup, it has become increasingly clear the ultimate arbiter on the issue is likely to be the court of arbitration for sport (Cas).
'We're going to find out if our MCO rules stand up to scrutiny as, one way or another, it looks like we're going to Cas,' says one source at Uefa, resigned to the issue of whether Palace can compete in next season's Europa League being placed in the hands of that Lausanne court.
Uefa has been liaising closely with Palace, with sources claiming the issue of John Textor's dual shareholding in the club and Lyon – who qualified for the Europa League by finishing sixth in Ligue 1 – was flagged by the governing body long before the 1 March deadline for resolving MCO issues. The American is in advanced discussions over selling his 44.9% stake in Palace to the New York Jets owner, Woody Johnson, which may help the club's cause, although there is no prospect of the deal being completed before Uefa has to make a decision.
The case is emblematic of the confusion surrounding club ownership and the regulatory issues facing the sport, and Uefa has delayed a ruling until the related case of Lyon's financial problems has been resolved. The DNCG – French football's financial watchdog – is auditing Lyon's accounts after imposing a provisional relegation to Ligue 2 last year owing to the club's debt levels, with a final outcome expected next week. Relegation and a ban from European competition for Lyon would make Uefa's life a lot easier, although both seem unlikely.
'It's a perfect storm,' says a sympathetic figure at another club. 'Everything that could go wrong from Uefa's point of view has done. We have three clubs involved [Palace, Lyon and Brøndby, who are owned by the Palace shareholder David Blitzer], and two multi-club groups. There's a complex ownership group at Palace who don't appear to communicate very well, and a surprise FA Cup winner. Not to mention Lyon's financial issues. You couldn't make it up really.'
Palace sources acknowledge they are working with Uefa amid belief on both sides that an accommodation is wanted, but two factors beyond either party's control could count against them.
First, Cas last month upheld Fifa's decision to expel the Mexican club León from the Club World Cup because they are part of the same ownership group as another qualifier, Pachuca. The owner, Grupo Pachuca, had attempted to park its León shareholding in a separate trust but this move did not satisfy Fifa or Cas.
In another complication Nottingham Forest, who will be moved from the Conference League to the Europa League if Palace are kicked out, may go to Cas if denied that promotion. A source close to Forest's owner, Evangelos Marinakis, told the Guardian the Greek billionaire was opposed to many of the moves to regulate football and was prepared to take on Uefa. There are clear financial incentives to do so. Whereas Chelsea earned £21m in prize money from winning the Conference League in the past season, Tottenham's Europa League triumph could be worth well over £100m because it also delivered a Champions League place.
Palace are worried the León ruling has set a precedent that could work against them. At Uefa there is a feeling that it would rather face Forest at Cas than have its multi-club framework tested in court by Palace.
One figure at a European team with direct experience of multi-club contortions believes Uefa will give Palace every opportunity to pass muster, concurring that the governing body's regulations could be brought tumbling down in the event Textor and company mounted a challenge. An examination brought about by Forest would, they suggested, give the existing rules a far better chance of holding firm.
Confirmation by Cas this week of the League of Ireland side Drogheda's expulsion from the Conference League owing to a multi-club breach has heightened concerns in Nyon, but the cases are different. Drogheda had qualified by winning the Irish Cup last November yet their owner, Trivela Group, failed to meet Uefa's March deadline, and unlike Textor the American investors are majority owners of two clubs: Drogheda and Denmark's Silkeborg.
Uefa had caused disquiet in some quarters by shifting that deadline forward from last year's June date. Some figures involved in club acquisition have expressed surprise that Drogheda were not able to win their case at Cas.
'Uefa are trying to be flexible, but the Fifa v Club León case is making it harder for them,' a source said. 'Cas upheld Fifa's rules, which are very similar to Uefa's, so the precedent is there. The Cas ruling was based on the nature of the blind trust and the importance of the regulatory process – ie dates and deadlines. To put it simply Palace haven't complied, but Uefa want to make it work.'
There is some acknowledgment at Uefa that elements of its MCO rules are not fit for purpose, although it would prefer to redraft them in Nyon than put them at the mercy of the court. There is nothing in Article 5 of Uefa's rules detailing whether Palace or Brøndby should be given precedence if both end up in next season's Conference League, for example. In ordinary circumstances it would be Brøndby by virtue of their higher league position, as stated in the rules, but Palace could also have a claim if parachuted in from the more prestigious Europa League.
Sign up to Football Daily
Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football
after newsletter promotion
Uefa's MCO rules have been in place without many revisions for 24 years, although one significant change was made 12 months ago when the regulations were relaxed to permit a club part of a multi-ownership group to compete in a different competition.
Article 5 was drafted in 2001 after a legal challenge from Tottenham's owner, Enic, the first multi-club operation in the Premier League, after AEK Athens were blocked from taking part in the 1998-99 Uefa Cup because their sister club Slavia Prague had also qualified. The initial rule stated that 'control or influence' over more than one club was not allowed, but it was not tested until 2017 when RB Leipzig and Red Bull Salzburg qualified for the Champions League, which led to the wording being altered to 'decisive influence'.
What had been a rare occurrence is now an annual problem for Uefa, with Aston Villa, Brighton and Toulouse allowed to play in Europe during the 2023-24 season only when their owners put more distance between them and Vitória de Guimarães, Union Saint-Gilloise and Milan respectively. The same issue affected Manchester City and Girona as well as Manchester United and Nice a year later.
The fact that neither Girona nor Manchester United joined their partner clubs in qualifying for next season's European competitions may have kicked a further conundrum down the road. Their respective ownership groups were allowed what was, in theory, a short-term exemption last season by placing one of their clubs' shares in a blind trust until 1 July this year. One club owner wonders how Uefa would have responded if those sides had reached the same tournament for a second consecutive year. It is unclear whether they would have been allowed to roll over into a further 12 months of blind trust holding.
Multi-club ownership is growing constantly; figures shared with the Guardian by the MCO Insights consultancy suggest more than 800 top- and second-tier clubs could be involved by 2030. That would roughly double the current number. By that point it would surely be uncontrollable by current rules. Simon Leaf, head of sport at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, believes Uefa and other governing bodies need clearer regulations to avoid being repeatedly taken to court.
'We are seeing an increasing number of clubs looking to use various legal avenues – in particular, competition law – to try to challenge regulations that they dislike,' Leaf says. 'This trend is likely to continue, making it much harder for leagues and governing bodies to regulate their competitions.
'On the Palace matter it is hard to have too much sympathy with Uefa given they already showed themselves to be willing to bend their own rules on MCOs last summer – and despite their efforts to strengthen the regulations since then, the bar has now been set.
'Either way, MCOs are not going away, and so football's governing bodies need to find a way to properly deal with these issues so that they are dealt with in the boardroom rather than the courtroom.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

44 minutes ago

• Telegraph

EU fantasies of toppling the dollar are totally delusional

It's a nice problem to have amid the Trump-inspired madness that grips today's foreign exchange markets. But it's a problem none the less. The Swiss franc keeps on appreciating, and there seems to be almost nothing the authorities can do to stop it. Increasingly alarmed by its trajectory, the Swiss National Bank last week cut its official policy rate back down to zero, and there is now talk of rates going negative again by summer's end. But to little effect. Switzerland's safe haven attributes have rarely been in such high demand. Rising geopolitical tensions have combined with growing loss of trust in the dollar as the bedrock of the global economy to send the franc soaring, almost regardless of whatever rate of interest it carries. Lest it be gold, there are few repositories of wealth thought more secure than Switzerland. Contrast that with the UK, where Bank Rate is still firmly stuck at 4.25pc with stubbornly persistent inflation to match. Thanks substantially to the lower import prices that the surging franc brings about, prices as a whole are going down not up; there is little or no cost of living crisis. This is great for consumers, not so much for Swiss industry, which has to match these deflating prices at home and abroad. But thus far at least, it's coped remarkably well. I've never bought the idea that a competitive economy needs a weak currency. Persistent devaluation has been the British way for decades now, and little good has it done either. At best, it's only smoothed the decline – a tranquiliser to avoid having to face up to the hard yards of painful structural adjustment. While the UK has grown poorer, the Swiss grow ever richer – living proof that a strong currency goes hand in hand with a competitive economy. The one is a reflection of the other. Bad, uncompetitive companies are quickly weeded out and dispensed with, while the disciplines of having to compete with cheaper foreign goods and services forces the survivors into imaginative innovation and productivity gain. You can, however, have too much of a good thing, and this is the unfortunate position that Switzerland now finds itself in. Broadly speaking, Switzerland produces in appreciating francs, but sells in equally fast depreciating dollars. There is only so far countervailing productivity improvement can take you. Theoretically, Donald Trump's tariff policies should make the dollar stronger, in that all other things being equal, they ought to reduce the size of the deficit. But it hasn't worked out that way. In practice, they've only further undermined international confidence in US economic management more widely. To most observers, it looks as if the White House is deliberately trying to tank the dollar. And on one level, it is; a depreciating dollar temporarily helps domestic producers by making imports more expensive. When combined with tariffs – effectively a sales tax on foreign producers – US industry gets a double boost. Trump wants the best of both worlds; he wants a weak dollar, but he also very much likes the dollar's commanding position in the global economy for the geopolitical power it bestows. Sadly for him, it's not clear he can have both. To support a weak dollar, he needs to make dollar assets less attractive to foreign investors. As Stephen Miran, the head of Trump's council of economic advisers, has suggested, this might be achieved by imposing a withholding tax on income generated by US assets, or by converting foreign holdings of US Treasuries into 100-year bonds. Trump's problem is that the less attractive the US makes itself to foreign investors, the less likely it is that the dollar can sustain its dominant reserve currency position. Use of the dollar for sanctions against countries the US has got a problem with has further undermined trust in the currency as both a store of value and reliable means of exchange. International trust relies crucially on the idea of a global order based on agreed rules, the very thing Trump wants to dispense with. So the dollar turns weaker, and together with the Trump tariff shock, it drives up domestic US inflation. Despite almost daily berating from Trump, Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is sitting on his hands and refusing to reduce interest rates in the precipitous way the president demands. The more Trump complains, the more Powell digs in. Determination not to give way has become a matter of principle, almost regardless of its economic merits. Powell's stance is totemic in the wider struggle to protect institutional integrity from presidential diktat. Once Federal Reserve independence goes, the whole fragile structure of dollar hegemony begins to crumble. Even Trump must know that. Meanwhile, Europe is cutting fast – with the notable exception of the UK, where inflation remains a problem. Normally, America's higher interest rates relative to Europe would cause the dollar to strengthen, but the trust issue has provoked a very different response – a weaker dollar despite a widening interest rate gap. Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank, sees Trump's antics as an opportunity for a 'global euro moment'. It has long been the ambition of European policymakers to look the mighty dollar in the face, and eventually usurp its position in the international monetary system. This has always seemed fanciful. For all its grandstanding, the EU remains a disjointed confederation of fiscally sovereign and often deeply divided nations, with no centralised Treasury function to speak of, no banking union and no unified sovereign debt market. This makes its monetary union acutely vulnerable to existential crisis. Lagarde might think of herself as queen bee, but her powers and reach are remarkably limited. As long as this remains the case – and there is little sign of it changing – Lagarde's musings are just delusional nonsense. Where reserve managers have been diversifying away from the dollar, it has, moreover, tended to be into gold, not the euro. Indeed, gold recently overtook the euro as the biggest central bank reserve asset after the dollar. A rather more potent long term threat comes from China, whose central bank digital currency and the infrastructure being built around it are deliberately designed to provide an alternative to the dollar for trade and investment. Those who take umbrage at Trump's America can try China instead. Who's to say it's less reliable than a country that slaps record tariffs on some of its closest allies? Regrettably, Switzerland is just too small to act as a global reserve currency. As it is, it struggles to manage the inflows of international capital looking for safety amid the bedlam of today's world. Already, the Swiss National Bank balance sheet is swollen by its various currency interventions to a size considerably bigger than that of Switzerland's entire economy. It can surely go no further in printing Swiss francs to buy foreign assets. But as I say, it's a nice problem to have.

Reuters

an hour ago

• Reuters

SNB's Schlegel still ready to intervene in forex markets despite U.S. list

ZURICH, June 21 (Reuters) - The Swiss National Bank is ready to intervene in foreign currency markets to hit its inflation target, Chairman Martin Schlegel said, despite Switzerland recently being added to a U.S. watch list on currency manipulation. The SNB, which cut its key interest rate to zero on Thursday, uses interest rates to steer inflation to its 0-2% target, Schlegel told broadcaster SRF. "We're also ready to be active on the currency markets," Schlegel said in the interview broadcast on Saturday. The U.S. Treasury this month put Switzerland on a list of countries being monitored for unfair currency and trade practices. Bern is seeking to avoid the 31% trade tariffs Washington has threatened against Switzerland, and Schlegel said the SNB conducts policy in the national interest. "Switzerland and the SNB are not currency manipulators," he said. "When we have intervened in the past, we have done it only to achieve our goal of price stability. Our motivation is not to gain an unfair advantage for Swiss exporters." There had been a "very good" exchange with U.S. officials the last time Switzerland appeared on the list, and there was a good understanding of why Switzerland was active in foreign currency markets, he said. Even if Switzerland did reappear on the list, that would mean further dialogue, Schlegel added. He also backed the government's proposals for stricter rules for UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab, unveiled earlier this month, which could force the bank to hold $26 billion more in core capital. "This is not a radical solution," said Schlegel. "Everyone has an interest in UBS doing well, that UBS is a strong bank and that UBS is also a bank that is strongly capitalised and well prepared in terms of liquidity."

The Sun

2 hours ago

• The Sun

Nuno Espirito Santo signs new contract but Nottingham Forest appear to make gaffe in statement announcing it

NOTTINGHAM FOREST appeared to make a major gaffe in their announcing of Nuno Espirito Santo's new contract. Forest, surprisingly, announced a new deal for their Portuguese gaffer early on Saturday morning. 3 3 3 The former Porto and Spurs boss has inked a new three-year deal at the City Ground, although you wouldn't have known it if you looked at the Midlands club's website. Eagle-eyed fans spotted that Forest had mistakenly stated that Nuno inked an "x-year deal" in their statement announcing the new contract. A snippet of the club's official statement read: " Nottingham Forest is delighted to announce that Nuno Espírito Santo has signed a new contract with the Club. "The Forest Head Coach has been handed a new x-year deal by owner Evangelos Marinakis ahead of the 2025/26 campaign." Nuno, 51, is over the moon to have extended his stay at the City Ground, which is set to host UEFA Conference League football this coming season. He said: "I am delighted to be able to continue our journey at this fantastic football Club. 'Since we arrived at Forest, we have worked extremely hard to create a special bond between the players, the fans and everyone at the Club, which helped us achieve great things last season. "I would like to thank our owner, Mr. Marinakis, for his constant support and backing. JOIN SUN VEGAS: GET £50 BONUS "It is important to me to share a strong relationship with our ownership and we have thoroughly enjoyed working together ever since I arrived at Forest. 'Now is the time to work harder than ever as we strive for more special memories together.' Marinakis said of the new deal: "Nuno has made a great impact and performed very well during his time with us so far. 'He has demonstrated that he maximises player performance and is an expert at developing players, whilst also embedding our young talent into the first team set-up. 'We enjoy a strong and solid relationship together and, above all, we share the same dream and ambition of writing a new history for Nottingham Forest, competing in the Premier League and in Europe and winning trophies for our great club!' Forest will kick off their Premier League season on Saturday, August 17, away to Brighton. The Tricky Trees will play the first leg of their Conference League play-off on August 21.